This interim order granted consideration of a representation regarding Physically Handicapped category for UPSC 2009. No further substantive orders were necessary as the interim direction sufficed, closing the petition.
Granted consideration of representation for PH/OBC category and closure of miscellaneous petitions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
WRIT PETITION NO.10168 OF 2010
ORDER :
The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to declare the action of the respondent in not disposing of the petitioner’s representation dated 05.04.2010, to consider his case under the physically handicapped category, as violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act 1995; to direct the respondent to accept his candidature in PH and OBC category for the UPSC examination 2009; and to add additional 1/6th of the acquired marks. By way of an interim order, the petitioner sought a direction to the respondent to consider his representation dated 05.04.2010.
By order in WPMP No.13064 of 2010 dated 23.06.2010, this Court granted interim relief as prayed for. As the petitioner is only entitled to have his representation considered, and such a relief has already been granted by way of an interim order, no further orders are necessary in this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, closed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. No costs.
Date: 04.11.2016.
________________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ
MRKR
3 issues framed by the court
Whether failure to dispose of a representation for PH category violation of constitutional rights.
Whether interim relief granting consideration requires further substantive orders.
Whether additional marks for PH/OBC category should be granted.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner
Respondent
Ramesh Ranganathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
